USDA Senior Level/Scientific or Professional (SL/ST) Performance Appraisal System

(1)

United States Department of Agriculture SL/ST Performance Appraisal Training

USDA

Senior Level/Scientific or

Professional (SL/ST) Performance

Appraisal System

(2)

Objectives



Enhance the understanding of pay-for-performance systems and OPM

certification requirements



Introduce new USDA SL/ST performance appraisal system and template



Set the stage for effective performance management throughout USDA

(3)

Why the Performance

Management Focus – Big Picture



USDA wants performance plans to drive behavior of all employees



All performance plans should clearly show alignment to Department/Agency goals



Particularly important for senior leader

plans, which are the ones most closely tied to Agency goals

(4)

Why the Focus on Performance

Management – Personal Level



OPM requires certification of SL/ST performance appraisal system



Agencies/Department without

certification have lower SL/ST total pay package



Potential direct impact on SL/ST pay



Can impact ability to hire best available talent

(5)

Consequences of OPM SL/ST

Performance Certification Decision

Structure of the SL/ST Pay System Minimum Maximum Agencies with a Certified Performance

Appraisal System $ 119,554 $ 179,700 Agencies without a Certified Performance

Appraisal System $ 119,554 $165,300

Impact on Pay

(6)

Value of Performance Certification

• Department is viewed by OPM/OMB to be providing appropriate focus on performance • System is being used as a leadership tool

• Performance management system is seen as a leadership responsibility and not merely an

(7)

Why Results-Oriented Pay for Senior

Employees

• High-performing organizations recognize

effective performance management systems drive change and achieve results

• Leaders are held accountable for Agency results that drive continuous improvement

(8)

Pay for Performance:

Two government – wide policies

• SES covered under government-wide policy since 2004

(9)

General Features of All Senior

Employee Systems

• Open range of basic pay with access to higher pay • Minimum and maximum rate range established • Agency plan for setting and adjusting rates of pay

must reflect meaningful distinctions between performance rating levels

• OPM must certify, with OMB concurrence, agency senior employee appraisal systems before

(10)

Agencies are Being Held Accountable

• Performance Management systems are

reviewed by OPM every 1 or 2 years to ensure system policies and framework are

appropriate

• Three Possible Outcomes of OPM review

1. Provisional Certification 2. Full Certification

(11)

OPM Certification Requirements

• Very specific requirements outlined in law – 5 CFR 430.404

• OPM SL/ST Performance Appraisal Assessment Tool (PAAT) must be completed and submitted to OPM along with sample performance plans

(12)

Performance Assessment

Accountability Tool (PAAT)

• Must request certification via SL/ST-PAAT

• Done internally within USDA then submitted to OPM

• SL/ST supervisors and employees themselves play key role in ensuring on-going certification

• PAAT reflects how well USDA senior employees demonstrate accountability for performance

• Adherence to OPM requirements by supervisors and employees vital to continued certification

(13)

Objectives



(14)

Highlights of USDA SL/ST Performance

Appraisal System

• 5-level element rating and 5-level summary rating Civil Rights element rated pass-fail

• Plans communicated to the SL/ST within 30 days of the beginning of the appraisal period

• Appraisal Plan and Appraisal Record are one document; same document for all SL/ST

• 3 mandatory critical elements, including Civil Rights element

– 1 additional critical element for supervisors

– 2 optional critical elements for program and position specific elements may be included in the performance plan

(15)

Highlights of USDA SL/ST Performance

Appraisal System

• Separate, critical, pass/fail Civil Rights element

required for all SL/ST; specific Civil Rights goals must be included in the Mission Results critical element • No non-critical elements

• Mission Results element will show measurable

results and drive the summary rating above the fully successful level

(16)

SL/ST Mandatory Element #1:

Mission Results

• Measures the employee’s leadership in the

development and implementation of program initiatives, including goals and objectives in

the Agency Strategic, Operating, Program, and/or Business Plans

(17)

SL/ST Mandatory Element #2

Professional Leadership

• Measures success in leading and managing his/her organization/program in their

scientific, technical, or professional discipline where the employee is accepted/sought as an authoritative source of information internal and/or external to the Agency

(18)

SL/ST Mandatory Element #3

Civil Rights

• Measures an employee’s contributions to civil

rights through the development, implementation, and advancement of civil rights strategic goals;

enforcement of civil rights laws, rules, regulations • Includes holding subordinate supervisors

accountable for achieving measureable civil rights goals and objectives in all employment, program delivery, and other administrative activity

(19)

SL/ST Mandatory Element #4:

Supervision and Human Resources

Management

• For Senior Employees Officially Designated as Supervisors

– Measures leadership and management of human

resources to accomplish assigned responsibilities and to achieve Departmental and Agency goals

(20)

SL/ST Critical Elements #5 and #6

Optional

• Rating official and the SL/ST employee may add up to two program/position-specific

critical elements that the employee is

expected to accomplish during the appraisal period

• Performance on these critical elements will have a direct impact on overall rating. As

such, the duties and responsibilities should be important to the position

(21)

New System Summary

• New system provides consistent approach

throughout Department

• Places particular emphasis on “Mission

Results” as differentiator of performance

– OPM requires that measurable results account for at least 60% of the rating

(22)

Crafting Performance Goals

• Primary “free space” in performance plan to craft goals is under Mission Results

• Other elements (Leadership, Supervision, Civil Rights) provide mandatory performance

language

• Optional elements also need to be crafted

(23)

Align Organizational and Personal

Goals to Mission Results

• Review the USDA, organization and program strategic goals

• Review your agency budget, the USDA GPRA annual report, OMB PART evaluation or additional agency or program measures

• Ask your supervisor to share his/her goals

• Ask yourself, “Which of these goals, objectives and organizational measures do I own, or am I personally

(24)

Creating Performance Measures for

Mission Results

• Select a USDA organizational, or program, goal for which the individual is responsible

• Develop performance measures

• There are no minimum or maximum number of measures. In general, ensure enough

measures are included to adequately capture scope of required effort

(25)

Creating Balanced Measures

• OPM and USDA policy require SL/ST performance plans to be “balanced”

• Balanced Measures—

– Originally developed by Kaplan and Norton as a performance measurement framework to supplement traditional financial measures

• Kaplan and Norton believe that organizations should develop performance measures from four perspectives

– Financial – Process

(26)

Creating Effective Measures

• Alignment of senior employee performance plans to USDA, organization or program strategic plans • Focus on measurable, outcome driven results

• Measures must include perspectives of

– Customers

– Employees-include them in developing initiatives; solicit and use their ideas

• Senior employee involvement and consultation in the development of performance plans is required

(27)

Employee Participation in Developing

Performance Plans

SL/STs MUST participate in developing their own performance requirements

1. Employee and supervisor discuss and develop the performance plan together;

2. Employee provides supervisor with the draft performance plan

3. Employee comments on draft performance plan prepared by the supervisor

(28)

Organizational Assessment

• Agencies must assess organizational performance

– Reports of the Agency’s GPRA goals – Annual performance plans and targets – Program performance measures

– Other appropriate measures

• Assessments at all levels serve as basis for individual performance evaluations

• Executives have responsibility to share data on organizational performance throughout the

(29)

Writing Effective Performance Goals

Many agencies use the acronym SMART to describe criteria for developing performance standards, including senior

leader standards. SMART stands for

Specific

Measurable Aligned

(30)

Activities vs Results

Performance Measure (result):

 Focuses on the results and

contribution

 Describes “what” the

person will accomplish

 Executive responsible for

outcome Task Description (activity):

 Focuses on the activities or

tasks completed

 Describes “how” the

person will do the work

 Manager ultimately

responsible for outcome

(31)

Activities vs Results



Activities are “what” we do and results are “why” we do them



Performance measures should be focused on results not activities



What do we get from the activity?



How does it help achieve our organization’s goals?

(32)

Common Terms



Never



Rarely



Occasionally



Frequently



Routinely



Consistently



Always

(33)

Employee Participation During the

Performance Period



Participate in development of performance plans



Track accomplishments during the performance period



Participate in mid-year progress review and the end-of-year appraisal

(34)

Writing Accomplishment Reports



Challenge



Context



Action

(35)

End-of-Year Rating Process

• Initial rating comes from Rating Official • Rated employee reviews/rebuts as

appropriate w/in 5 days

• Input evaluated by Reviewing Official

• Forwards, with any additional comments, to Performance Review Board (PRB). Cannot change Rating Official’s rating but can make

(36)

End-of-Year Rating Process

• PRB recommends performance based recognition including salary increases, performance awards, and rank awards • Secretary approves final ratings

• Grievances covered under Administrative Grievance Policy

(37)

USDA SL/ST Performance Plan

Template

• Let’s turn now to an examination of the new template for USDA SL/ST

• OHRM to evaluate effectiveness of new

system and performance plan template after 2010 cycle -- may request SL/ST feedback

(38)

Objectives



(39)

Leadership and Performance

Management

• Performance management and measures drive performance

• Senior leader emphasis on performance

management can lead to increased focus and performance

(40)

Leadership and Performance

Management

Performance Management consists of

two components:

–Clear Goals

–Good Feedback

These are fundamental leadership

responsibilities

(41)

Goal Setting Improves Performance



Combining feedback with goal setting is key to success



Hard goals that employees accept increase persistence in achieving those goals

(42)

Five Stages of Performance

Management

Planning Monitoring Developing Rating Rewarding

(43)

Planning Phase – Effective



Performance plans completed in timely manner



Specific and measurable goals



Rated employee involved and engaged in crafting goals



Clear understanding of how plan aligns to/supports agency goals and mission

(44)

Planning Phase – Ineffective



Performance plans not completed



Not measurable



Goals don’t follow SMART model



Rated employee not involved in crafting goals



No performance conversation about

expectations and how plan aligns to/supports agency goals and mission

(45)

Monitoring Phase – Effective



Provide real time, on-going performance feedback



Progress against goals tracked



Changing circumstances noted and incorporated into plan



Regular supervisor/employee conversations on progress and setbacks

(46)

Monitoring Phase – Ineffective



Little or no performance feedback



No mechanism to measure progress against goals



Changing circumstances ignored



No on-going performance conversations – no mid-year review

(47)

Developing Phase – Effective



Individual development plan created and followed



Focused on increasing capacity of employee to perform



Opportunities/new assignments given to increase skills

(48)

Developing Phase – Ineffective



Little thought given to increasing capacity



Over-emphasis on here and now/short range view



May get the job done this year, but future effectiveness will be limited.



Can create discontent amongst top performers

(49)

Rating Phase – Effective



Input sought from rated employee



Evaluation done against requirements and in consideration of organizational assessment



Able to differentiate levels of performance



Sufficient data provided to support the rating



Appraisals done consistent with agency/department direction

(50)

Rating Phase – Ineffective



Appraisal done with little supporting documentation



Not evaluated against established requirements



“Drive-by” appraisal conversation with rated employee



Untimely



Not used as leadership tool to drive desired behavior

(51)

Rewarding Phase – Effective



Acknowledges contribution to Agency mission



Shows positive consequences of focus on accomplishing performance requirements



Rating of record completed on time, thus providing access to awards/etc

(52)

Rewarding Phase – Ineffective



No apparent connection between rewards and performance requirements



Rating of record not completed/completed late



Employees who do not receive rating of record can be rendered ineligible for some

rewards/recognition

(53)

The Leadership Contract

Trust

Faster Decision Making Mission

(54)

Workshop Closing

If you have questions about the new SL/ST performance appraisal system, please contact the following members of the Office of Human Resources Management:



Patty Moore [email protected]

(202) 720-8629;



Kimm Slayton [email protected]

(202) 690-3238 or



Alberto Vega [email protected]